Book contents
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Feminist Judgments Series Editors
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments Series
- Titles in the US Feminist Judgments Series
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Commentary on Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital
- 3 Commentary on Reynolds v. McNichols
- 4 Commentary on Conservatorship of Valerie N.
- 5 Commentary on Bouvia v. Superior Court
- 6 Commentary on Moore v. Regents of the University of California
- 7 Commentary on Linton v. Commissioner of Health and Environment
- 8 Commentary on Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring
- 9 Commentary on Doe v. Mutual of Omaha
- 10 Commentary on Smith v. Rasmussen
- 11 Commentary on Burton v. State
- 12 Commentary on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
- 13 Commentary on Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
- 14 Commentary on Does v. Gillespie
- 15 Commentary on National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
5 - Commentary on Bouvia v. Superior Court
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 December 2022
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Feminist Judgments Series Editors
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments Series
- Titles in the US Feminist Judgments Series
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Commentary on Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital
- 3 Commentary on Reynolds v. McNichols
- 4 Commentary on Conservatorship of Valerie N.
- 5 Commentary on Bouvia v. Superior Court
- 6 Commentary on Moore v. Regents of the University of California
- 7 Commentary on Linton v. Commissioner of Health and Environment
- 8 Commentary on Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring
- 9 Commentary on Doe v. Mutual of Omaha
- 10 Commentary on Smith v. Rasmussen
- 11 Commentary on Burton v. State
- 12 Commentary on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
- 13 Commentary on Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
- 14 Commentary on Does v. Gillespie
- 15 Commentary on National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
Summary
Bouvia v. Superior Court was a California decision from 1985 in which a twenty-eight-year-old quadriplegic woman sought to have a feeding tube removed and to refuse any further lifesaving measures. The original opinion held that a competent adult has the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment but its description of “the ignominy, embarrassment, humiliation and dehumanizing aspects created by her helplessness” prompts this chapter’s authors to question whether the original court supported Bouvia’s decision because of her right to choose or because the justices believed her life was not, in fact, worth living. Professor Barry Furrow proffers a poetic feminist rewrite focusing on the factors that were important to Bouvia, rather than her inability to perform the roles that concerned the original court. Furrow also considers whether recognizing an autonomy “right” in this case ignores the larger issue of lack of resources to support disabled people. Professor Joan Krause’s commentary illuminates the original court’s decision to focus on the principle of personal autonomy to resolve this dispute - and thus to ignore any broader public responsibilities to the disabled community.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten , pp. 94 - 117Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022